The messiah was expected to be divine by the Jews. They also expected him to undertake a military campaign. Even after his resurrection, Jesus's disciples asked when he was going to restore the (earthly) kingdom (Acts 1:6).
In Mark 14, Jesus says, "I AM, and you will see the Son of Man..." (referring to himself). He calls himself Son of Man more than anything.
In the early church, 'Son of Man' was understood as a designation for Jesus' human nature, i.e. as a counterpart to the title 'Son of God'..
The modern day bible is based off numerous translations of predominantly ancient Greek and Hebraic texts, by numerous sources and the meaning has been debated among scolars of Christianity for centuries.
I do believe that no final verdict will ever be passed on the subject.. whatever 'verdict' is passed in this thread on poal, will have little consequences for Christianity..
It's a matter of belief, lamb of God..
In the early church...
I doubt that very much. Might even go as far as to prove the contrary. Standby.
I spoke to a theologist about the matter and she pointed me to this article about the subject (joo translated):
As i said, the debate has gone on for ages and if the two of us agree on some detail, it will be of no consequences and will surely not end the debate..
(post is archived)